eGamer Awards 2011: Best First Person Shooter

This year, with the first person shooter genre, despite having seen a number of excellent games, all that we ever seem to hear is Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3. It’s understandable since both are competing for a monstrous throne, but let’s not forget the other fantastic shooters that have released this year, most of which rather curiously seem to be part of the threequel crowd. Maybe there’s a trend starting. Either way, it’s time to determine the best first person shooter of 2011.

The Rundown

The first person shooter genre is definitely one of the most popular in the game, and all gunners (that is shooters, not Arsenal supporters) are well aware that a great deal needs to be offered in order to make it to the top. It’s quite easy to stick a floating gun on the screen wielded by a generic nameless and faceless brick and call it an FPS, but the truly fantastic games in this genre pull out all the stops and deliver a complete experience we can’t forget. Whether this comes in the form of a grand multiplayer or an engaging single player – or in some cases both – is up to the game, and of course, in the end, what we evaluate is how well our nominees managed to achieve their goals and how good the playing experience is. What more could we ask for but guns, guns and more guns? The answer to that would be the best use of them in the most exciting, diverse and memorable playing experience.

The Nominees

Killzone 3

Killzone 3 was a game that took no risks, but it certainly improved on an already excellent game. Its single player had a number of shortcomings, but we forgave them because it was, and still is, one of the best shooters on the PlayStation 3, and overall it was just a pure, visceral, beautiful and awesome action experience. The multiplayer was an absolute blast, and an upgrade over its predecessor, and the game was filled with more than enough content to keep players hooked long after they completed the main campaign. Perhaps its reluctance to be bold and take a huge leap forward may have held it back somewhat, but it was without a doubt a game of exceptionally high quality, and it did exactly what fans expected it to, as it wasn’t intended to be a grand scale revolution of any kind. And at the end of the day, that’s really what counts, and it’s the reason why it’s fully deserving of its nomination. ——————————————————————————————————————————————

Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3, oh how we all love you. You never did give up on PC gamers did you? And it shows, because Battlefield 3 on PC was absolutely world class. The console versions were still great, but they offered a different experience due to the reduced capacity of players allowed in the multiplayer. And we all know that the PC version was the golden cookie. When you stripped away the disappointingly average single player campaign that perhaps not many people cared about because most probably just saw it as a training ground to get to the multiplayer, you were effectively left with one of the best first person shooter and multiplayer experiences around. Battlefield 3 didn’t just look phenomenal, it played that way too, and was undoubtedly a worthy successor to one of the greatest FPS kings, Battlefield 2. When compared to the Bad Company series, Battlefield 3 wasn’t exactly a bold revolution, but it was certainly a clear example of grand refinement and expansion. And if you want to be technical and compare it to its predecessor, then wow, let us not go there. It’s undoubtedly one of the best FPS and multiplayer experiences money can buy, and we’ll definitely be playing it for a long, long time.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

Halo: Combat Evolved was simply one of the best examples of how HD remakes should be done. It featured a complete visual overhaul, sound remastering, multiplayer suite and 3D, meaning that there was definitely enough for both newcomers and nostalgic fans alike. It was an admirable achievement, in that it managed to shine even in today’s times, as it kept the core mechanics in tact and truly showed that great games rarely age badly, and will always stay great regardless of the times. And the cherry on top was that it came at a lower price than most games around. It wasn’t just for the sake of nostalgia, as it was also an exceptional shooter and multiplayer experience. It was held back a little, unfortunately, by the fact that were only a handful of multiplayer maps and in the single player there were cases of some pretty dumb AI, but those were small issues in an otherwise phenomenal and classic shooter.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Resistance 3

The Resistance series always triumphed for the way it felt different to other shooters, and of course for its unique arsenal of weaponry. Resistance 3 was no different, and it was an outstanding game that delivered on all fronts in terms of content. The gameplay was fantastic and continued the series’ trend of changing dramatically in style and feeling with each new game, but still remaining awesome. Perhaps the only real disappointment with the game was in its story, which didn’t do the last two games nearly enough justice, especially with the way Resistance 2 ended. With its story, Resistance 3 felt largely disjointed and like a cop out more than anything else, but it still did well to drive the game forward, and we can’t take anything away from the shooting experience on offer. And once you were done with single player the great multiplayer was waiting, fully loaded with variety and Resistance’s bad-ass weaponry.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Modern Warfare 3 was arguably the most controversial game of 2011 when it released. It was simply staggering how vast and divided its reception was, but regardless of what haters may think of it, there’s no denying that it was a great game. Personally speaking, I stopped being a fan of Call of Duty after the first Modern Warfare, with only Black Ops making a big impression on me, but even I can easily admit that Call of Duty is the very best at what it does, and Modern Warfare 3 was no exception. It just sometimes seems like Call of Duty is what the Blackberry is to South Africa – everyone seems to either have it, or want it because their friends have it. The reason is that it does everything you need it to do, and does it extremely well. It doesn’t necessarily blow you away, but it gives you an excellent experience. And in the end, Modern Warfare 3 was dynamic, explosive, exciting, addictive and engrossing, despite taking no risks. While the main campaign was filled with explosive set pieces, it was still short as usual and flawed, and it wasn’t the most riveting tale. But it did well to conclude, and the special multiplayer modes such as Spec Ops certainly got improved. The online didn’t really make leaps and bounds forward, but it did receive some clever tweaks that improved the experience. Fans will love it regardless of anything, and it’s still an outstanding game that fully deserves its nomination.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

And the winner is…

The FPS genre was undoubtedly strong this year, and it saddens us that there can only be one winner. With that said, Killzone 3 didn’t take home the prize, because while it was an oustanding game, it didn’t blow us away. It stuck to doing what it knew it could do, and it played a relatively safe hand.

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary didn’t take it for similar reasons. It was one of the best examples of how to do an HD remake and it undoubtedly was amazing for both nostalgic fans and newcomers. It didn’t do much wrong either, but it has to unfortunately fall victim to the fact that technology-wise it is held back by virtue of it being a remake, and most importantly we’ve played it before. But we can’t label those as the main reasons, because gameplay and fun is what counts in the end, not prettiness. So the best reason would always be the simplest one: the competition this year is much too strong. However, the fact that it managed to get nominated just goes to show how excellent it was.

The winner wasn’t Resistance 3 either, and we’re going to sound like a broken record here when we say again that the competition was mighty strong. However, Resistance 3 also suffered in its single player campaign due to its disappointing story, and it didn’t seem to be as ambitious a project as Resistance 2. Still, it was a fantastic game that deserves its recognition.

Finally, the famous, or infamous, Modern Warfare 3 didn’t take this one. Whether that’s a shock or a relief to you isn’t our priority because we have our opinion and you have yours, and we certainly respected and enjoyed yours in our community awards. Modern Warfare 3 was the best at what it does, and we don’t want to take anything away from it. However, what we want to do, is justify our choice regarding the winner, and that’s coming right up.

The WINNER of eGamer’s Best First Person Shooter Award of 2011 is…

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Battlefield 3!

For us, this wasn’t about Modern Warfare 3 versus Battlefield 3. It’s pointless to have a fanboy rage over them because they are both fundamentally different games, and the choice between both will always come down to personal preference. If you want the best realistic war simulator, then Battlefield is your baby, and if you want the best arcade shooter, then do yourself the favour of playing Call of Duty. However, one extremely important factor that contributed to us choosing Battlefield 3 was that it arguably had a lot more work to do than Modern Warfare 3. It was faced with a lot more pressure, and not just from the hype. Modern Warfare 3 arrives on a yearly basis, and Infinity Ward knew exactly where to go from their last game. We would be blatantly wrong to say that their job was easy, but Battlefield 3 certainly had the bigger and more difficult task, purely because the good old Battlefield 2 is one of the great kings of multiplayer, and DICE needed to not only bring that back, but top it.

The result may have been close to the formula seen in Bad Company 2, but it was without a doubt the Battlefield experience we loved many years ago, and it was a worthy successor. We believe that DICE admirably lived up to the daunting challenge of returning Battlefield to its pedestal. For gamers, this wasn’t about commercially knocking Modern Warfare 3 off its perch, this was about getting Battlefield back in all of its glory. And we feel this was achieved. The multiplayer experience was world-class, the graphics beyond incredible and technologically brilliant, the gameplay was awesome and extremely diverse and the sheer scale was jaw-dropping. Its single player was arguably the only disappointing area of the game, but there’s no denying that the multiplayer, which was what the game was all about, was on another level. And the best part for many was that the PC was the favoured platform, and the game was dramatically bigger and better on it. We feel that Battlefield has evolved. It didn’t revolutionise the formula, but it stayed true to it and in the end delivered an experience that was brilliant, and one we’ll be playing for a long time to come. And you know what? The same can be said for Modern Warfare 3. But at the end of the day, DICE’s achievement was greater.

I was very disappointed with Killzone 3. In fact it was a huge step backwards for the franchise. No ranked custom games, terrible match making system, cluttered maps, 12v12 (used to be up 32 players), terrible in game squad features, no prox chat, low player health, cheesy point pop ups, awful spawning system(TSP’s and no squad leader spawning wtf), camping due to the snipers cloak/scramble, horrible clan system, ect…I could go on. Killzone 2 is hands down better in every way.

http://egamer.co.za/ Azhar Amien

Definitely, Battlefield 3 is awesome! :) Personally, I’m so glad to finally have the true successor to Battlefield 2 back.

As for Killzone 3, I loved it. I felt it was better in some areas, and not in others, but for the most part I think why people resent it a little bit is that it played very safe. It wasn’t bold, and didn’t take leaps forward. I can see why you’d have problems with it, and I admit that Killzone 2 had the better impact on me, but I didn’t share your disappointment with it :(